I can see Cain as a VP rather than Presidential candidate. He would be very effective in that role.

Actually, I would vote for a random name from the phone book over what we have now.

Ditto. I am for ABO Anybody But Obama.

Christie would be very useful as a supporter of the Republican candidate no matter who it is. As an extemporaneous speaker, Christie has no competition. The man is great as a speaker and in fielding jabs from the audience or biased interviewers. Christie would never have been caught in that verbal trap laid by the media....as Cain was.

The best use of Christie by the Republicans would be to have him on the stump, speaking and throwing his weight behind the candidates. (sorry, couldn't help myself)

Andy R, I'm thrilled you've gone on record with that observation. I mean, if it were off the record, and I might need to cite the opinion of a sideways-hat-wearing, smirking shit-head socialist barista/college student on conservative realpolitik, then I'd have to see if I could pin you down to go "on the record" with your deep analysis.

So does anyone want to say they think Bachmann is going to get the nomination? Or Cain? Or Perry?

Bachmann, not a chance. The other two? Who knows? A lot can happen between now at the convention. You're acting like each candidate should be called out as the nominee based on their own merit. You're completely forgetting that other candidates can implode or otherwise commit hari-kari. Likewise, something can happen in the life or vicinity of a marginal candidate that can catapult one into vying for front-runner. I'm not suggesting a Bill Shatner save-someone-from-drowning, but you get my meaning.

There have been threads about Bachmann on this site before, and I rolled in and said she was a total joke and people who thought she would be a good candidate (not to mention President) were crazy. Mostly because she is crazy.

But people defended here. And like here. Apparently genuinely. And they attacked me for saying she was a total joke. It's hard for me to wrap my head around that. She doesn't seem to be doing so well, anyway.

Who are you calling "you people", asshole? Scratch a liberal and find a hate-filled communist, I swear.

She is most certainly not crazy. In-depth political analysis doesn't appear to be your strong suite.

But people defended here. And like [her]. Apparently genuinely.

So what? At the outset people were willing to listen to her and see what she had to say. As ABO as I am now, when he won, I was willing to accept it and see what he had to say. Turned out to be quite a bit...and not much else.

You seem to be indicting a lot of people for given an accomplished woman a chance at higher office. What does that say about you?

I agree with Peter. The Repub governors restoring fiscal solvency to their states is very important--it proves that solvency, not stimulus, restores prosperity. Eventually, the Dems will be shown to be wrong in practice as well as in theory.

The Repubs already have a field with many newcomers. Christie should do his job and get ready for a future run.

Having a viewpoint that's at odds with liberal ideology equals mental illness

''I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending.'' -Michelle Bachmann

Yeah, that's totally not a crazy thing to believe.

She seems like the kind of smart rational person that interprets weather patterns as signs from God that I want running the country.

If Christie is going to enter (which I think is highly doubtful), he will probably wait until the dust settles on the states moving their primaries forward, pick an opportune time before the first primary so that he's the Fresh Candidate going in, and allow the high enthusiasm expected for a new entrant to propel him to an easy win. Then, as the theory goes, an initial win makes subsequent wins more likely.

If the primaries had been held a few weeks ago, Perry would be the clear winner. But now he's stale and unimpressive. Christie would want to avoid that.

@David: another word: swagger. The left mocks swagger. They said Bush had swagger. They say Perry has it too. Swagger evinces visceral loathing in them. It's almost like a slur word. Notice how often they will use it in the coming months.

I cannot recall Governor Palin playing the Messiah card. The Church at which she was a guest speaker while Governor just happened to have a Deliverance Minister from Kenya visiting, and he came forward when prayers were made for Palin.

He proclaimed over her a protection from witchcraft. And if anybody ever needed that, she did.

Cain being a very educated Southern Baptist is not into spiritual warfare apart from worship music.

Then there is the Mormon mystery man. He is comfortable in his beliefs that all Mormon men are now or will become angels, so no Messiah is actually needed.

More than half the country elected a fucking doofus on the promise that oceans cease to rise and the planet begins to heal--and then he produces an economic program that vitiates the republic.

Good job America--really fucking good job.

I happen to like Christie because he appears to be a fighter and can handle Q and A--he's a bit liberal in some of my positions, but that isnt a big deal when the economy is going deep six. And as others have noted, I dont give a damn who runs on the republican ticket as long as the can send the zero back to chicago.

IMO the republicans have some pretty solid guys to contend for the nomination--there is no perfect candidate, IMO, but no matter how imperfect, all are preferable the the jug ears idiot that is the incumbent (and now self proclaimed underdog--what an idiot)

BROOKS: A lot of rich guys love the guy. I mean, if you look at the people who are really lobbying for this, it's a lot of big Wall Street money, I think, is the prime force behind this. And they don't trust Romney. They think he's closet moderate. They see Perry underperforming. They haven't fallen in love with the Hermanator, Herman Cain, even though I think he's had a phenomenal couple weeks here, in part because he does realize that it's a - people want something big. And he's got his 999 plan, which has appealed to something.

I, myself, am a little down on Christie - not because I don't like him; because I don't think he's right for the times. These are very scary and uncertain times. And I think what the country is looking for is somebody who's orderly and secure - which Romney, more or less, is. Somebody who's big and bombastic is not going to actually reassure people - especially if there's another crisis, which is quite possible.

David Brooks is a first class idiot; only a smidge smarter than the ultimate douchebag EJ Dionne with whom he spars on NPR. David Brooks is the kind of conservative that manhatten liberals like to invite to their cocktail parties to demonsrate their impartiality. Safire got sucked up by the NYT; now Brooks--any decent conservative who flacks for the NYT is a loser

Fred: glenn has been on it like white on rice--Volokh--who when Holder was nominated was effusive in his praise. The story is starting to percolate. It probably isnt in Althouses's style, so I dont begrudge her covering it, but it seems to me to be a major scandal that, by rights, should take down Holder--already caught in lies to the the congressional committee.

I'm not sure gun runner is something that our professor would cover--but for the main line legal blogs, the coverage seems scant.

recall the angst when alberto gonzalves fired seven US attorneys--you would have thought the world was coming to an end. and now we have an AG who seems to be up to his ass in a murdeous scandal when real lives have been lost--cest la vie

Roger J, the queer tennessee teabag ,with some his trivial crypto-klan brainfart of the day.

Is that "pathetic ad hominem", Jolly?

If the rest of you missed it, over in the Fish thread, J has claimed that he's a professional editor and a published author. Taken together with his e-grade and his benchpressing skills, that would make him...what?

xnar said...Looks like that leaves Romney/Cain 2012. I could vote for that.=================Cain is just one of a few candidates left not really "vetted" by media or the other candidates. (Huntsman is the other).

Romney wants the guy to get a long time period where Herman gets a "pass" on the tough questions so he can split the dumb yahoo vote with Perry, the excretable Santorum, and Bachmann.

But I don't see Cain faring well down the road when his 9-9-9 Plan is dissected as another Steve Forbes "Flat tax" boon to the wealthy. And his thin resume is looked over. He's still a good guy and I like him...but I see him as only one of several possibilities in the VP slot. And not the perfect fit - which would for Romney be Marco Rubio. Not in mid-60s like Romney and Cain, from a big Southern swing state, hispanic, younger, and a fine speaker and immensely popular with the Tea Party.

Still, long way to go and the Southern Fundies have it out for Mitt Romney. Even if he is electable and the one with the best chance of doing some good on the economy and jobs - they don't care. Not if he isn't Square With Jesus and believes those thar Satanic things..To them, a dumber Texas version of George Bush is just great.

I have a conspiracy theory about J, but I won't tell you what it is because I hope the conspiracy — if it exists — fails. I hate conspiracies. Some time in the future, I'll tell you what the theory was, as this is a conspiracy that will play out within a limited time frame. Don't try to drag it out of me. I am not in this conspiracy, but I don't want to blow the lid off of it. It's has to do with certain character actors seeming to be pursuing different goals, when actually they seek one goal.

RogerJ: J lives in the San Fernando Valley which would be the equivalent of living out north of Millington. Very difficult to get down with the hipsters when you are way the fuck out there off the bus line and too fat to walk and too broke to hire a driver and too crazy to get your own car. So you pretend you are Pynchon or that you read Hegel or that you can speak Spanish.

Very funny to watch someone come apart like a dollar watch. Especially an antisemite with a Mormon problem and an inability to engage in normal discourse.

Second billing at the Chuckles Club, Andy R - sure his humor is based on his misshapen head and his funny, outdated mode of dress, but once you make it past the obvious, you will be impressed with his vacuity.

Damn--in the process of jerking J around I forgot what the thread was about--Ahhh--it was about republican challengers for the nomination. Sorry to see Gov Christie drop out--I think he had a lot going for him: fiscal conservative, combative with entrenched interests, and liberal on social issues--seems to me to be winning persona. At least a winning persona among the non-ideologically bound.

The bottom line is that anyone (except for the lunatic Bachmann) would be preferrable to the idiot occuping the white house now.

gonna be an interesting election season, which, given the trend to move up minor state primaries, will make the season run at least a year

Fred4Pres - Brooks likes Romney. No surprise. That is why only Romney has a growing lead over Obama in the national polls while (currently) Obama beats the other candidates. It is that he appeals to the Center. The RINOS the Fundie yahoos hate so much, Independents, and moderate Dems sick of Obama like Brooks. Romney could give the Republicans the Landslide election if the whole middle-of-the-road crowd finds him acceptable.

Brooks: The central problem is that Mitt Romney doesn’t fit the mold of what many Republicans want in a presidential candidate. They don’t want a technocratic manager. They want a bold, blunt radical outsider who will take on the establishment, speak truth to power and offend the liberal news media.

They don’t want Organization Man. They want Braveheart.

The question is: Are they right to want this? Well, if they want an in-your-face media campaign that will produce delicious thrills for the true believers, they are absolutely right. But if they actually want to elect an effective executive who is right for this moment, they are probably not right.

Sort of a bad time because people in the Republican Base are so pissed at Executive sorts and people that went to "good schools" and "met with furriners" and even lived and worked overseas and even speak a furrin language or two - they want an Everyman on the Republican side square with Jesus and Goldwater. "We need Joe the Plumber!" sort of thinking.

Ultimately, though, it never felt right to him. He said that while it was a family decision, his wife Mary Pat and their kids were fully supportive of him running, and that it was his choice not to go ahead.

ah yes Squatt the mindreader. You'rethe peasant here. Like yr klan boyfriend Roger-Bubba. Capichay? I doubt youve made it through like ebonics Ayn Rand or RonPaul for Dummies as of yet.

Even you should oppose Romney C4. Pure ...capitalist...and yes the z-word-ist. The most Wall Street-friendly candidate in the running. Cain's a bad joke. What did your..blessed Wehrmacht think of..freemasons?? (which mormons are really). Forget-me-nots.........

Oh I do ,do I Mikey Schmutz. Where do you live, Mikey? Like some NewYawk shithole mostly. Uh hate to break the news to ya, but no regional screenings in effect as of yet. Tho like blocking NY financier-scum--not bad idea.

Brooks would have been the first one to say Ronald Reagan was too radical and unelectable. If the Republican primary voters do anything lets hope that they don't listen to the likes of David Brooks, Chris Matthews, Cedarford and some douche with his hat on sideways.

I don't know. Some streetfighters and combative types won. Andy Jackson, Truman, Teddy Roosevelt and Nixon to just name a few.

And of course some of your gentlemanly metro types won too. James Buchanan, Tom Jefferson and Martin Van Buren all were elected as well.

It depends on the time you live in.

These times call for someone who will fight the Obama administration. Who will not be afraid of being called a racist and dealing with bogus bullshit like painted rocks and airport sucked cocks. They will try to pin any transgression by a Republican dogcatcher in East Podunk while their attorney general gives guns to drug dealers and stonewalls any invesitgation. The newsmedia will be out for blood. So give them blood.

The guys who wrote the constitution had a shrewd understanding of human nature. They knew that governments tend to tyrannize their subjects and that it was critical to balance and limit government power. They understood that liberty is much, much, much more important than efficiency.

Things have changed quite a bit since the constitution was written but human nature hasn't. The GOP should use the constitution as the definition of its core values and make defending the constitution its highest priority.

Fred4Pres said...Ceadarford, you almost make sense sometimes and then vear off the road. There is one unifying theme that the tea party conservatives-republicans-libertarians want: Less Government.

=====================It's pretty obvious that Romney means less government. The deficits force the taking of a meat axe to government to chop off the fat. Romney is very good at getting all sides to agree to a "new, lean" company or State (Massachusetts) government.

I would say that in my opinion, if the near bankruptcy of America's various levels of government are to be fixed, and new revenue (taxes) is rejected..that means someone that can wield the meat axe well to cut government programs and unecessary government jobs. That is Romney. That was the potential of Christie - who was going about trying to salvage NJ and its budget the same way Romney went from a 3 billion deficit to a 600 million surplus in Massachusetts.

Remember that while Reagan was an ideologue of sorts, he worked easily with Democrats in Cali and in DC and negotiated many things they wanted he agreed would be OK - like the abortion law in Cali, the ending of vast numbers of abusive tax shelters for the rich in 1986 and jacking up FICA.

Steve Koch - "The GOP should use the constitution as the definition of its core values and make defending the constitution its highest priority."

Many parts of the Constitution are achaic and some systems that it set up, fine in the days of powdered wigs and judges only living to their early 50s on average - don't work anymore.

Revering the Constitution as some sort of Sacred Parchment and defending every line of it as perfect and from Allah Himself and thus ordering all our lives perfectly for All Eternity?To remain unquestioned and immutable?Bunk.It is just a nation's "owners operating manual".Except America and the Muslims, other nations update their operating manuals with the times.

Cedarford, I prefer Cain to Romney, but if Romney is the nominee (obviously that is possible)--I will definitely vote for him in the general.

I doubt Palin is coming in (it seems more and more unlikely).

I want someone who is unappologetic and who can turn a BS question around on the biased questioner. Because if you can't deal with some idiot from MSNBC how can you deal with Putin, ChiComs, al Qaeda, etc.

"These times call for someone who will fight the Obama administration. Who will not be afraid of being called a racist and dealing with bogus bullshit"

But that responsibility goes way beyond the presidential candidate. Every GOP voice should be doing that. The presidential candidate needs to be smart and slick and disciplined, not emotional. He needs to stay above the fray and delegate the dirty work to others.

The GOP presidential candidate needs to be somebody who will win. He needs to sign conservative legislation that somehow gets passed in congress. He needs to reverse Obama's presidential orders. He needs to shrink government. Any GOP candidate will be orders of magnitude better than Obama.

While Romney is not my first choice, if he beats Obama, I will be thrilled. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

You need to radically improve your argument if you want to interest me, let alone persuade me. The overwhelming majority of people who want to rewrite the constitution are dems who find the constitution a major impediment to expanding the power of the federal government. Why would I listen to those people? I don't want a bigger, more powerful federal government. I want a federal government whose power is constrained as defined by the constitution.